If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by alex0770

You don't know what you're talking about. Right to work is a right to freeload. You enjoy all the perks of being in a union, but you don't pay dues. It's bullshit, unless you're a DeVos, Koch Brother, or one of the 1%. Clue in.

That is not an accurate statement. Pursuant to a decision by the Supreme Court, nonunion members can be forced to pay that portion of union dues which go toward the collective bargaining costs incurred for the protection of all workers, while nonunion members cannot be forced to pay the portion of the dues that go toward union expenses like politicking, etc.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by NCAA Umpire

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

not exactly how the economy works. the effect right to work will have is that there will be an influx of low wages jobs, but the main goal of right to work is just to remove worker protections all workers gain through collective bargaining.

unions dont have to demand higher wages, they can protect workers in other ways that regular labor laws dont.

of course you will earn more if you are in a union, and they can afford to pay you more, but they would rather have cheap disposable labor akin to a 3rd world country.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by NCAA Umpire

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

The jobs in many of these right to work states don't provide enough to live on. As for the direction of this country,the 1% keep getting richer while everyone else keeps getting poorer. A country that is a plutocracy won't survive.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

You're blaming the union for doing its job and following the established procedures, when the problem lies with some short-circuit-brained arbitrator. I suppose the union leaders could have told their lawyers not to do what the contract calls for, but that could have been awkward.

What's needed is an appeal from the arbitration process.

If it's the union's job to ensure that drunken stoners continue to manufacture American automobiles, they need to go the way of the dinosaur. These workers should have been fired on the spot, end of story.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

^ Yeah because we all know that if someone caught this nonsense on video, then it means the unions should be crushed.

I for one, have never been able to understand the idea that firemen or police or teachers or any other public service non blue collar workers were ever allowed to collectively bargain. I agree, each one should have to individually negotiate their own salary and benefits. It is ridiculous that women workers should have to be paid equally as men as a general rule. Get rid of unions and let women get paid whatever they are willing to work for too.

When my mother was a nurse, there was no union and she didn't get any benefits or protection for working night after night and extra shifts. Or even a pension plan. Served her right for getting the sack for trying to get better pay and benefits for all the nurses in her hospital instead of just herself.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Having been a Michigan resident for most of my life and sitting on both sides of the table at bargaining sessions, what I find most distasteful about the actions that just took place in Lansing was the timing and way they occurred. If you look back at Governor Snyder's comments last year, he was emphatic that right-to-work was not on his agenda and went so far as to say he would veto legislation, should it make it through the legislature and to his desk. Why then, right after the election when Obama and the Dems blasted through Michigan and Wisconsin (the other team's "home") did the governor find right-to-work such a hot issue that it had to be rushed through and then have an appropriation attached to it so as to make it immune from being petitioned and voted on by the people (appropriations cannot be subject to voter initiatives under the Michigan Constitution)? Why was the legislation (which I have read), largely boilerplate language that has circulated from the Koch Brother's PAC?

I have read comments that unions protect slugs and others who should, from a management perspective, be tossed on their arse's. The bad thing about unions is that because they receive payment from EVERYONE in the union, they have an obligation to represent everyone who has contributed -- no matter that they might be in the wrong or stupid. As a manager, I would often be frustrated by this fact, but also know that both sides had a job to do and the union was doing its job. I also knew that if I made my case properly, the employee could still be discharged but I would have cause for the action which had been reviewed; I could not just come to work and toss someone out "be-cause." Under right to work, I need only have to fire someone -- I don't need a good reason. And if you have ever had to hire an attorney to defend yourself, imagine in the workforce if YOU have to hire one to defend you against any infraction? If you are in a union, the union pays for the attorney for you; the union has negotiated a process that assumes you are innocent until proven guilty; the union has likely created a process of progressive discipline and will ensure that all the "i's" have been dotted and "t's" crossed. As a manager, I had no problem with that process; hell, I even encouraged a group of employees to unionize. They were so individualistic and back-stabbing that I had to argue every time I met with them and as individuals they would send me notes or stop in my office to sell out another worker. When I said we negotiated as a department, they threatened a union and I never fought the application. The union rep later told me that I had "passed dirty" because they now had to educate and demonstrate that the employees "collectively" and not "individually" bargained! My life became soooo much easier.

The other problem with Michigan's law is that there is no penalty for not paying for the union. So I can freeload and take all of the benefits negotiated by the union without paying for one. I can criticize the union for supporting this or that cause -- but it is a union that governs by a will of the majority; not the minority. I too often see people more than willing to take the benefits and successes of the union all the while complaining they aren't "represented."

I also don't think unions have done a good enough job educating people about why they were and are necessary (do you enjoy set hours, overtime pay, equal treatment, grievance processes, arbitration rights, paid lunches, paid breaks, vacations, sick time, insurance, a middle class hourly wage, education benefits, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, disability, not having your children working, health and safety at your employment -- just to name a few). From a management perspective, I never found them particularly difficult to engage. I find managers who bitch and complain the loudest usually abusive and unwilling to deal with even the most simple engagements. As a student of history, look back at the Carnegie's, Rockafellers and other giants that controlled the trusts in the early 1900's. They argued in the exact words I hear today by the Koch's and Republicans. As a former Republican, it pains me to see what the party has become...

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by JockBoy87

Modern reality?

Quality of life is not supposed to stay static when a country is experiencing steady long term economic growth. But that is a modern reality. You may have gotten used to it only because it has been that way for so long, but our predecessors in the first part of the 20th century would be shocked that nothing has changed for the middle man since then.

Modern reality is a lack of wage growth for earners such as myself over the last 40 years. Quality of education, diet, and housing has stopped improving for all but wealthy plutocrats who proudly boast yet another feather in their cap shafting the standard of living for hard working Americans everywhere. The last time I could afford a marinated steak? I think that was when I was still living with my dad, a top notch attorney in Baltimore, what a coincidence. I'm not moaning and groaning about eating beans throughout the week for dinner, but when I see trillion dollar gains in the economy and I am eating the same crap for dinner every night, seeing the same stupid kids on the street, and living in the same shithole as similar wage earners did in the 1970s, something is wrong.

Perhaps you can let that thought marinate. Thanks pops.

The reason for the lack of progress on wages is our continued policy of allowing massive immigration, legal and illegal. They are willing to work hard and cheap, so they bring the wage levels down for all but the most skilled. Legal immigrants get the benefit of affirmative action programs to get hiring preferences over Americans, and the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal to prefer Americans.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by loki81

I never understood compulsory union dues.

why shouldn't a worker have the option to give up any union protections and forgo the dues if that's what he really wants?

Because the law requires unions to represent the worker, whether he is a member or not. If a non-member gets fired, he has the right to file a grievance and the union is obligated to represent him. If it does not, the worker can sue in court or file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, and the Union would lose and have to pay a shit load of money. Also, the worker gets all the benefits of being represented by a union without having to pay the costs of being in a union. Unfortunately, the law has been set up this way. So what you have is a situation now in Michigan where a union and it's members are legally compelled to represent a non-member. A union's income is almost entirely from the dues members pay. So members are compelled to pay for the representation of non-members, but non-members aren't compelled to pay for anything.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

The union response should be to immediately make plain that when they ask for increased wages or benefits, they are asking for their members alone. That should make corporations happy, because then they could openly treat the non-union workers as the serfs they really want.

That would be unlawful. The Union has to bargain for everybody and make sure everybody gets the same wages and conditions of employment, whether they are members or not.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by loki81

I always assumed that's how it worked.

non-union employees at private companies have to negotiate raises and benefits individually, not collectively... if I think I deserve a raise, my boss and I have a sit-down and I state my case (as opposed to my union rep sitting down and collectively negotiating everyone's raises)

This is unlawful, too. The employer cannot negotiate separately with non-members.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by JockBoy87

Modern reality?

Quality of life is not supposed to stay static when a country is experiencing steady long term economic growth. But that is a modern reality. You may have gotten used to it only because it has been that way for so long, but our predecessors in the first part of the 20th century would be shocked that nothing has changed for the middle man since then.

Modern reality is a lack of wage growth for earners such as myself over the last 40 years. Quality of education, diet, and housing has stopped improving for all but wealthy plutocrats who proudly boast yet another feather in their cap shafting the standard of living for hard working Americans everywhere. The last time I could afford a marinated steak? I think that was when I was still living with my dad, a top notch attorney in Baltimore, what a coincidence. I'm not moaning and groaning about eating beans throughout the week for dinner, but when I see trillion dollar gains in the economy and I am eating the same crap for dinner every night, seeing the same stupid kids on the street, and living in the same shithole as similar wage earners did in the 1970s, something is wrong.

Perhaps you can let that thought marinate. Thanks pops.

Jockboy -- greed on both sides is a problem.

But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed. A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by eastofeden

The people who want to bust the unions and force people to work for very little with no benefits are the same people who do not want any form of universal health care. They dont' want to say it so I will..They want to enslave people to line their pockets with $$$ and when their slaves get sick...they just die? Not really hard to understand why so many people accurately assess the party as evil.

Bottom line...when 90% of the people own 10% of the wealth...and 10% of the people own 90% of the wealth...there is this little thing called revolution. Unions were the buffer. The greed of the Republican Party will eventually kill capitalism...maybe sooner than later.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by HenryReardon

Why should everybody get the same wages? If I can work harder and faster than someone else doing the same job shouldn't I be paid more?

The law does not permit employers and unions to treat members and non-members differently. Once workers are represented by a union, the employer cannot unilaterally set any terms and conditions of employment unless the union clearly and unequivocally waives the right to bargain over certain terms. Even if the union were to do that, the employer could not lawfully base any term and condition of employment on union membership.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by NCAA Umpire

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

There is nothing - either in theory, OR history - to even vaguely suggest that busting the unions would create more jobs. Just as not taxing the rich never quite led to any real difference in job creation. And in the end, EVEN if it did create more jobs, they would pay too little, and give no benefits. And there are only so many jobs you can do in any given amount of time. I would rather work ONE job that pays all my bills, than three jobs that barely cover them. Wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

Jockboy -- greed on both sides is a problem.

But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed. A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.

It's very easy and neat to discuss low education jobs - pushing buttons, yawn at assembly lines etc. Why don't we talk about the ones that require higher qualification? Those are also represented by unions. Is it greed that I want adequate payment for a skillset that has taken me roughly 50 000 hours to develop? That NOBODY but an equally qualified professional could do instead of me? Am I greedy to want to be able to enjoy some measure of comfort for the work I am doing? Republicans are so busy regurgitating talking points that they don't stop to think about what those points actually mean for other people.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by NCAA Umpire

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

There is nothing - either in theory, OR history - to even vaguely suggest that busting the unions would create more jobs. Just as not taxing the rich never quite led to any real difference in job creation. And in the end, EVEN if it did create more jobs, they would pay too little, and give no benefits. And there are only so many jobs you can do in any given amount of time. I would rather work ONE job that pays all my bills, than three jobs that barely cover them. Wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

Jockboy -- greed on both sides is a problem.

But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed. A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.

It's very easy and neat to discuss low education jobs - pushing buttons, yawn at assembly lines etc. Why don't we talk about the ones that require higher qualification? Those are also represented by unions. Is it greed that I want adequate payment for a skillset that has taken me roughly 50 000 hours to develop? That NOBODY but an equally qualified professional could do instead of me? Am I greedy to want to be able to enjoy some measure of comfort for the work I am doing? Republicans are so busy regurgitating talking points that they don't stop to think about what those points actually mean for other people.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by JockBoy87

Modern reality?

Quality of life is not supposed to stay static when a country is experiencing steady long term economic growth. But that is a modern reality. You may have gotten used to it only because it has been that way for so long, but our predecessors in the first part of the 20th century would be shocked that nothing has changed for the middle man since then.

Modern reality is a lack of wage growth for earners such as myself over the last 40 years. Quality of education, diet, and housing has stopped improving for all but wealthy plutocrats who proudly boast yet another feather in their cap shafting the standard of living for hard working Americans everywhere. The last time I could afford a marinated steak? I think that was when I was still living with my dad, a top notch attorney in Baltimore, what a coincidence. I'm not moaning and groaning about eating beans throughout the week for dinner, but when I see trillion dollar gains in the economy and I am eating the same crap for dinner every night, seeing the same stupid kids on the street, and living in the same shithole as similar wage earners did in the 1970s, something is wrong.

Perhaps you can let that thought marinate. Thanks pops.

Try some hot sauce with your beans - delicious

And the top notch attorney wasn't so top notch at teaching manners it appears

Unions need to live in the present and not rely on politicians to protect status that is not supported by economics or the public

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by loki81

if your skills are highly developed and valuable to employers, wouldn't you be able to demand your own higher salary commensurate with your skills if they're in-demand?

No, because music is a small field, and there are many musicians. None of us is capable of demanding anything on our own because there will always be someone desperate enough to be willing to play for less. I could be that someone when push comes to shove. So we need a higher authority to make certain we're not taken advantage of.

Not everybody should be expected to possess bargaining skills and leverage strength in order to be paid fairly.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

There is nothing - either in theory, OR history - to even vaguely suggest that busting the unions would create more jobs. Just as not taxing the rich never quite led to any real difference in job creation. And in the end, EVEN if it did create more jobs, they would pay too little, and give no benefits. And there are only so many jobs you can do in any given amount of time. I would rather work ONE job that pays all my bills, than three jobs that barely cover them. Wouldn't you?

It is much better to have 100 people making $60K each than 50 people making $70K each. It helps them, and it helps the economy. It also increases tax revenue, something liberals love.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

It is much better to have 100 people making $60K each than 50 people making $70K each. It helps them, and it helps the economy. It also increases tax revenue, something liberals love.

That's faulty logic. Unions don't prevent anyone from getting a job and don't prevent anyone from CREATING one. That's just Republican propaganda, that unions somehow repress job growth. And it would not be a $60K vs $70K difference, it would be a $25K vs $70K. And $25K is simply not enough.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

No, because music is a small field, and there are many musicians. None of us is capable of demanding anything on our own because there will always be someone desperate enough to be willing to play for less. I could be that someone when push comes to shove. So we need a higher authority to make certain we're not taken advantage of.

Not everybody should be expected to possess bargaining skills and leverage strength in order to be paid fairly.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

How about we have a Blame The Immigrants Appreciation Day every month? Let's say every first Tuesday of the month, we blame immigrants in every post we write for everything the topic is about It would be way awesome.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by NCAA Umpire

So is it better to have fewer jobs that pay slightly higher wages, or many more jobs that pay slightly less?

False dichotomy.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by NCAA Umpire

That is not an accurate statement. Pursuant to a decision by the Supreme Court, nonunion members can be forced to pay that portion of union dues which go toward the collective bargaining costs incurred for the protection of all workers, while nonunion members cannot be forced to pay the portion of the dues that go toward union expenses like politicking, etc.

IMHO, that's a fair scenario.

It's not unreasonable. But the non-union can't expect to have any help in any grievance process or any of the other things unions do for their members.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by jackoroe

If it's the union's job to ensure that drunken stoners continue to manufacture American automobiles, they need to go the way of the dinosaur. These workers should have been fired on the spot, end of story.

It's the union's job to support their members in any grievance process. It's no different than the DA's job being to try for a conviction regardless of the truth.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

I'm still amazed that forced union membership has not be declared unconstitutional.

Short on facts, here. I knew union leaders when I was in college who were earning the exorbitant amount of $24k/year. The only thing outrageous about that is it was twice what they were trying to get for the bottom of their union workers and 50% more than what their top earners were getting.

Yes, the wealthy unions have lost their way -- but lumping all unions together is invalid.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by HenryReardon

Why do you automatically assume that the pay isn't fair already?

Economics.

Originally Posted by Benvolio

The reason for the lack of progress on wages is our continued policy of allowing massive immigration, legal and illegal. They are willing to work hard and cheap, so they bring the wage levels down for all but the most skilled. Legal immigrants get the benefit of affirmative action programs to get hiring preferences over Americans, and the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal to prefer Americans.

Troll.

Legal immigrants ARE Americans.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

REMINDER:
Does anyone remember when Captain "Sullly" set his 737 down in the Hudson River? There were no fatalities.

1. He and his assistants were union.
2. Flight attendants were union.
3. First responders were union.

All reasonably skilled positions.

And what got them down safely and all the passengers off alive was a pair of checklists.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

It is much better to have 100 people making $60K each than 50 people making $70K each. It helps them, and it helps the economy. It also increases tax revenue, something liberals love.

False dichotomy.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

The top article is spinning bullshit because it doesn't identify the starting conditions. Just as an illustration, as a high school freshman playing basketball I got the team's "Most Improved Player" award. One might expect that the award meant I was a great player, but at best I was mediocre -- what it actually meant was that I started off as a piss-poor joke on the court but became good enough I wasn't a total embarrassment.

Identifying starting conditions is essential.

The second article is a bit better but is short on specifics.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by Benvolio

The reason for the lack of progress on wages is our continued policy of allowing massive immigration, legal and illegal. They are willing to work hard and cheap, so they bring the wage levels down for all but the most skilled. Legal immigrants get the benefit of affirmative action programs to get hiring preferences over Americans, and the benefit of anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal to prefer Americans.

Or another way of looking at that is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to see a change in that status quo.

When "Democrats" start to make some money, then they start to vote and think like Republicans; and suddenly they want to protect their own marginal incomes at any cost.

When in reality they aren't really making anything compared to the huge profits that the Corporations that they're working for get from tax subsidies, "corporate welfare," and "tax loopholes."

Wait for it:

Originally Posted by Jack Springer

Jockboy -- greed on both sides is a problem.

But since this thread is about unions. No way should anyone be paid $100/hour plus a pension and benefits for life for aligning car doors or pushing a button for a robot to paint a car.

But it's okay for Corporations and groups like Bain Capital to buy companies, bust up what made them great American Companies to work for, and use those very same 'pensions and benefits' to fuck the guys who spent years trudging to work everyday working for a company that they felt was not only solvent, but was providing a product to their communities, and to their country.

Unions have pushed manufacturing out of the USA by greed.

That's the mantra from the right now isn't it?

So who's going to eventually look out for the workers in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and China?

You know, those "statistics" that we here about on the News here in America who are dieing in fires because they have no safety measures to protect their employees?

Who are being paid NOW by American Corporations to manufacture underwear with American Labels, but who refuse to spend just ten cents more per garment to ensure the safety of someone who might be taking home $30 a month.

Yes, INDEED, it's the UNION's Fault.

A recent example is the small baker's union causing 18,000 people to lose their jobs making twinkies(r) and dingdongs(r). I doubt if there is one person in the US that begrudges anyone from making a fair wage - just not an excessive one for doing little.

Yes, and both of the posts that I just quoted exemplify the thinking that has brought down Modern Democracies in the past 100 years.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by Ninja108

Right to Work states might have more jobs but what kind? Something tells me it's of the minimum wage kind

Seven of the ten poorest states (i.e. lowest median family income), are right-to-work for less states. Nine of the ten richest states (i.e. highest median family income) are not right-to-work for less states. Strong unions redistribute wealth to working people are create a strong middle class.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by HenryReardon

Why do you automatically assume that the pay isn't fair already?

Because I can compare (and did compare) Non-union foreign auto workers in the south to the Detroit UAW. That idea worked well in the south because cost of living and jobs paid so much less in those red states but it does not work well in Northern states.

Let me ask you this. Why is Walmart fighting tooth and nail to Prevent it's workers from unionizing? Is it because they are so fairly paying their workers? Or is it because they would have to face a much more formative opponent when they treat workers unfairly.

I have been a huge opponent of Unions when they do things that make you scratch your head like the behavior of the above Chrysler article.

Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Walmart "Corporate" will be the first ones to tell you that they're not opposed to "Unions."

(Because many of the Unions are responsible for their "state of the art logistics systems," but only as contractors.)

Just like the same people who are living and dieing in the sweat shops that they contract to manufacture goods with American names use "subcontractors" keep you Saving More, and Living Better.

They just have all of their "hourly" staff convinced that Walmart's "Open Door Policy" regarding Walmart is so much more superior to having "Union Reps."

Meaning that from Walmart's perspective they can demote you, humiliate you, cut your hours, and then benefits, that as an "hourly associate" you'd be stupid to complain.

Oh, and Walmart has other measures to deal with employees who want to organize.

They're big enough to shut down an entire store.

Each time you drive past a Walmart Super Center, know that it employs (on average) 300 people.

The city that the Walmart Super Center is located in gave tens of thousands of dollars in "tax subsidies" fpr Walmart to build there; infrastructure, tax abatements, you name it. Usually for a 10 years or more "contract" with that municipality.

Walmart deciding to close, or relocate could bankrupt a local town just in legal fees alone in breaking that contract.

So most folks who think that they're getting the raw end of the deal in how they're treated as American Workers for Walmart, have other external pressures to avoid Unions.

And let's not forget the topic of this discussion; "right-to-work" laws make it possible for Corporations to continue to operate that way.

Last edited by CTF; December 12th, 2012 at 06:30 PM.

Never regret anything, because in that moment it's exactly what you wanted.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Because if they submit to union blackmail, Walmart will have to raise its prices to levels that are no longer competitive.
I hope they never, ever give in. I'd rather see them close their stores than go union.

Re: Michigan becomes 24th right-to-work state

Originally Posted by JayHawk

The minimum wage cannot pay for a human being to live in a cheap apartment nor afford food. That is what is at issue with such low paying jobs.

[url]

The minimum wage doesn't serve that purpose. Do some research and you will find that most people working for minimum wage are not bread winners. Housewives, teenagers, students, etc start out at minimum wage because they can.